If you are a fan of the state spending more of your money, be sure and thank your state lawmakers for a job well done when you spot them out on the campaign trail this summer.
If Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat, would have gotten his way, spending would be going down this fiscal year, which started on July 1.
Following several amendments, the governor's budget proposal would have cut year-over-year spending by around 1 percent this fiscal year.
Republican lawmakers, who overwhelmingly control the Missouri General Assembly, not only restored the proposed cuts, they added funding.
Therefore, the state will likely increase spending this fiscal year by 3.4 percent to $24.1 billion -- an increase of $801.6 million compared to what was appropriated last year by state lawmakers.
Nixon did veto $240,000 in funding appropriated by lawmakers, citing legal technicalities in three of the items. He also restricted $15 million, fearing overly-ambitious gaming revenue assumptions.
Even though the governor promised to release the funds if revenue collections come in higher than anticipated, Republicans cried foul, accusing the Democrat of playing politics in an election year.
While both parties should get credit for increasing spending, Nixon is one of only three governors -- two Democracts and one Republican -- in the last 30 years to reduce spending year-over-year.
Overall, spending has increased 468 percent from $3.9 billion in 1981 to $22.2 billion in 2011.
Expenditures for fiscal 2012 are still being calculated and are expected to be released in August.
Thanks to higher appropriations by Republicans, expenditures are likely to increase again this year.
By Brian R. Hook, brhook@missourijournal.com, (314) 482-7944
Hook is editor of Missouri Journal, which tracks the economy across the Show-Me State.
For news updates, sign up for a newsletter and follow Missouri Journal on Twitter and Facebook.
Tell me William, did you study while in school? Are you one of the 1%ers? If not, why not? People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones my friend.
All that I will share is that the IRS tells me that I am in the lower half of the Middle Class, which is fine with me. Oh yes I did study but not until College.
For those who actually want a solution, move the idea Ellis Island to a few locations along the southern border, boom, all immigration issues are solved.
Are you referring to the corporate welfare recipients -the beneficiaries of TIFS, government military spending, protected monopolies. Not all companies blackmail states and municipalities for tax credits or threaten to leave in order to be subsidized but many do. Where do you think all the money in politics comes from my friend? They aren't pouring money into campaigns for their health. Not all 1%ers buy up politicians so they get a return on investment via tax breaks, easing of financial and environmental regulations -but enough do. Oh the naivete...
Just thought you might like some, you know, facts.
People may not realize -when a developer gets a TIF, developer receives the money up front, basically. The municipalities pay to retire their bond/borrowing via the higher sales tax which taxpayers pay over decades. Worth noting, even the stereotypical welfare recipients pays sales tax. The direct beneficiaries of these large sums of money of taxpayer monies from tax credits, and TIFs are a relatively few individuals via their entities, as opposed to the social program recipients (welfare label) where larger # of people are direct beneficiaries. Of course the corporate welfare people can argue that their welfare also benefits the many-via a Rube Goldbergian trickle down machine. This is all not to say that I believe all TIFs and state tax credits have had poor results, same as social welfare spending. But the misinformation campaign utilized by those with the power (typically the ones with the money) has gone over the edge.
As I've stated before, using taxes as weapons or incentives is what creates every single one of these issues. Eliminating those practices eases these issues and removes them from the table. Real solutions aren't too hard to find when we take off our blue or red glasses.
As of now, a person can inherit millions tax free, put this money in tax-free investments or capital gain/dividend generating invesments, and pay at a much lower rate than a working person. Such a person is favored in our tax system, and deified by some (Job Creator), but they never have to work a day in their life. The American Dream - to be born wealthy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal#2006.E2.80.932007:_Operation_Wide_Receiver_and_other_probes Read it, you might learn a thing or two.
You can't say you're for the working middle-class, then tax away their jobs & pin the bills of system dependents on them. You can't say "Republicans only want to help the rich" when George Soros, AIG, Goldmann Sachs, Hollywood, Network TV, Fanny/Freddy, Warren Buffet, David Geffen, Auto Makers, Unions etc. got you elected so you bailed them out. You can't say "no new taxes for anyone making under $250,000/yr", then apply mandates forcing cities to raise their taxes to cover the cost (St Peters right now). It's lie after lie everytime they open their mouth. Look, CA, NY & IL (run by crook after criminal) constantly blame Conervatives for their plight, yet they never elect one. Dependents play an important role, it's a voter pool of "victims of the rich" (actually the Dems) that continues to get bigger not smaller under their care. Dependents who become INdependent is a different 1%, but with a decimal & a few zeroes before it. Perpetuate poverty & dependence, blame the rich instead of those responsible, say Reps want to take away your aide, and poof, you have a Dem vote. The game is trasparent, and you are too smart to miss it when it's written right into the results. FYI - Conservatives REGULARLY suggest & support flat-tax-rates, but your "Ambassadors of Fairness" shoot them down. Why? Their votes come from these problems, not from solutions.
You say you favor taking away all tax breaks and incentives, and I point out some substantial breaks to address (capital gains/dividend tax rates -and uber-protection of inherited monies -as opposed to working people's wages.) Time to take off your tea-colored sunglasses? Flat tax, yet another pollyanish or starve the beast solution. There is a reason the wealthy want flat tax - because it would benefit them, yet again. Most the proposals out of the GOP entail lowering or eliminating the tax rates on investment income. I have no party affiliation, by the way. It only seems that way since the GOP has embraced and financed the most extremist political tack in our lifetimes. I'm done replying to your weak rants - they do not merit a response. Feel free to rule this Patch.
They don't deserve another dollar until they can manage the money they have & stop spreading themselves too thin. I don't have the space to explain to you the effects of the Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, back & forth battle that's been going on for decades but needless to say, it's a little more complicated than how you seem to see it. I suggest actually looking at some of the numbers of those eras, instead of listening to what you're hearing. Here's where you start, the Fair Housing Regulatory Act. You'll find you'll know a little more when you're done. And that a lot of what you've been led to believe is wrong. It isn't your fault, 98% Liberal media, that's why you are misinformed. Wait, I thought the wealthy got all the benefits from the CURRENT tax-plan? You're embarrassing yourself, do some research.
Can you itemize the parts that you find objectionable? And submit a sub-paragraph on why.
Dictator? I saw how Obama bent over backwards to compromise with the House during his first two years in office. Then when the Tea Party folks (influenced by big money) showed up, he saw the error of trying to talk with them. Which brings me back to you and my starting comment. Start speaking sensible, like Devon, and have a nice day.